Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/740

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES minors is a subject which has always been re garded as within. the province of legislative authority, and how far it shall be exercised is a question of expediency and propriety which it is the sole province of the legislature to determine. The judiciary has no authority to interfere with the legislature's judgment on that subject unless perhaps its enactments are so manifestly unrea sonable and arbitrary as to be invalid on that account." The additional provision of the statute that no child should be permitted to work before the hour of seven in the morning or after the hour of six at night is not passed upon by the court, as the defendant was not accused or convicted of violating this provision of the statute. This case is in accord with all of the authority as yet to be found upon the subject. From an early date, indeed, and, as far as the courts are concerned, from the time that the Supreme Court of Masaschusetts sustained, in the year 1819, an indictment against the inhabitants of Dedham for neglecting to keep and support a grammar school, it seems to have been universally con ceded that although parental rights must, as far as possible, be protected, the child, both as a future citizen and as one who, on account of his weak ness, is in need of protection, is primarily a ward of the state and entitled to its guidance and care. There are but few cases upon the subject, be cause but few have cared to contest laws of the class in question. Even in the tase of Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill., 98, 40 IT. E. 454, 29 L. R. A. 79, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315, which is commented on elsewhere in this department, and in this issue, the Supreme Court of Illinois, which has gone farther perhaps than any other court in its antagonism to laws which have sought to regulate the contract of employ ment, took care to say: " We do not wish to be understood by anything herein said that Section 3 would be invalid if it was limited in its terms to females who are minors." Andrew A. Bruce. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Police Power — Hours of Labor.) Ore. — The validity of a law prohibiting the employment of women in factories, launderies. or mechanical establishments for more than ten hours a day was attacked in State v. Muller, 85 Pacific Reporter, 855. The court con cedes that the right to labor or employ labor on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the interested parties is not only a liberty but a property right, guaranteed to every citizen by the 1 4th Amendment to the Federal Constitution which cannot be arbitrarily interfered with by the legislature, but holds that the amendment was not designed or intended to limit the right of the state under its police power to prescribe such

699

reasonable regulations as might be necessary to promote the welfare, peace, morals, education, or good order of the people, and that, therefore, the hours of work in employments which are detri mental to health may be regulated by legislation, citing in support thereof; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 18 Sup. Ct. 383, 42 L. Ed. 780. As a result, the court comes to the conclusion that the statute involved in the case is a reasonable exer cise of the police power of the state. Further more, the court calls attention to the fact that similar statutes have been upheld in Massachu setts, Nebraska, and Washington. See Common wealth v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 120 Mass. 383; Wenham v. State, 65 Neb. 394, 91 N. W. 421, 58 L. R. A. 825, and State v. Buchanan, 2q Wash. 602, 70 Pac. 52, 59 L. R. A. 342, 92 Am. St. Rep. 930. The only case holding a contrary doctrine is that of Richie v. People, 155 Ill. 98, 40 N. E. 454, 29 L. R. A. 79, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315. But thougli that case is well considered and ably presented, the court is nevertheless of the opinion that it is borne down by the weight of authority and sound reason. A further contention that the statute was invalid as being an arbitrary and unwarranted discrimination against persons engaged in the particular businesses or employments specified is met by the argument that nearly all legislation is special in the object sought to be obtained or in its application, and the general rule is that such legislation does not infringe the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws when all persons subject thereto are treated alike under like circumstances and conditions. In support thereof is cited In re Oberg, 21 Ore. 406, 28 Pac. 130, 14 L. R. A. 577 and Ex parte Northup 41 Or. 489, 69 Pac. 499. It was this erroneous theory as to what consti tutes class legislation which largely influenced the court in the case of Ritchie v. People, referred to in the above statement as the one dissenting case to the doctrine announced. "Women," the court said in the Ritchie case, "employed by manufacturers are forbidden to make contracts of labor longer than eight hours in a day, while women engaged as saleswomen, in stores, or as domestic servants, or as book keepers, or stenographers, or typewriters, or in laundries, or any other occupations not embraced under the head of manufacturing, are at liberty to contract for as many hours of labor in a day as they choose." This theory of class legislation practically re quires all police laws to be omnibus in their char acter. If adhered to it would put a stop to almost all sane police legislation. It is not supported by the better authority. The test in all cases should